back to article Windows XP's adventures in the afterlife shows copyright's copywrongs

On April 8, 2014, Emmanuel III Delly, the Primate Emeritus of Babylon of the Chaldeans and erstwhile Primate of the Chaldean Catholic Church, departed this life, in the full expectation of an eternal life to come. On the same day, another entity entrenched in the lives of millions also passed away as Microsoft declared Windows …

  1. b0llchit Silver badge
    Boffin

    Yes and no

    Software copyright should officially expire after 20 years...

    That should read "Proprietary software copyright should officially expire..." and maybe you need to add "abandoned/orphaned" too.

    You'd probably create a huge problem too. The point of copyleft FOSS is that it remains available. That is the crux of many FOSS licences, where it uses the copyright legislation to retain user's rights.

    A lot of FOSS projects are older than 20 years. Do you want them to become more open than open by removing the copyright protections? How do you deal with many FOSS projects' continual development cycle where part of the code is ancient and some is brand new. How do you distinguish new and old code? Line 1 gets no protection and line 2 gets protected? After a bugfix, characters 5..17 of line 413 are protected while the rest of the file is not?

    If you want to expire copyright after a short time, then you need to make a new class of global legislation to put copyleft on the books.

    1. juice

      Re: Yes and no

      > Do you want them to become more open than open by removing the copyright protections?

      I'd guess it'd be like the existing copyright mechanism, where it's the IP as it was, not as it currently is.

      To take an example: copyright for the original Mickey Mouse movie (Steamboat Willie) will expire in 2024, and people will theoretically be free to use that particular iteration of The Mouse in any way they choose. However, Disney would still be able to come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who attempts to usefeatures which appeared in later revisions, such as his white gloves, or eyes with pupils.

      https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/2023/04/07/the-copyright-expires--mickey-mouse-goes-public

      If anything, it should be easier for software, since this tends to be automatically date-tagged by whatever versioning mechanism is being used.

      On the other hand, that doesn't always happen, and then you've also got the fun of having to extract said code and it's associated metadata from obsolete versioning software. And that's assuming that - especially for closed-source software - that all revisions of the source code have been kept...

    2. trevorde Silver badge

      Re: Yes and no

      There is still commercial software being developed after 20 years, so maybe it should be:

      Software copyright should officially expire 20 years after the last significant change

      The problem now being what is a 'significant change'.

      FWIW, worked for a company whose main product has a code base which now dates back to 1993 and is still under active development. Also worked for a different company who open sourced a lot of their products after they were no longer commercially viable.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Actually, like the exaple for a certain mouse, this isn't an issue here

        The current code base would remain protected, along with the compiled code being distributed. The only thing that would be impacted would be the 20 year old version that may not even run on a modern system.

        I think the question about if a one size fits all 20 year window is the best option, but in principle it is necessary to preserve not only tools and systems but a part of history as well. The article outlined a few other key points, like synchronizing copyright on documentation, a possible open source exception or modification, etc. But I think the outcome is going to be more palatable it the technical community is driving the process not the layers and lobbyists.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Yes and no

        I agree with you in theory, but it'd be hard to put into practice - what if I re-order a few lines and make a release? What is deemed significant? What if I make a small change of source and is both technically and in-practice insignificant, that results in a large binary change? If it is closed source then you wouldn't know that the source change was small.

        So, I do agree with you in theory, but I think it'd be hard to monitor and enforce in practice.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Yes and no

        FWIW, worked for a company whose main product has a code base which now dates back to 1993 and is still under active development.

        I wouldn't even call that particularly old. I can point to source files in my working trees that have lines from the mid-to-late 1980s and lines from yesterday.

    3. FIA Silver badge

      Re: Yes and no

      Software copyright should officially expire after 20 years...

      That should read "Proprietary software copyright should officially expire..." and maybe you need to add "abandoned/orphaned" too.

      You'd probably create a huge problem too. The point of copyleft FOSS is that it remains available. That is the crux of many FOSS licences, where it uses the copyright legislation to retain user's rights.

      The point of copyright is that the original author retains control for a period that they can benefit from, but after that time the work is put into the public domain for the benefit of society as a whole.

      The point is that it's entirely independent of the original intentions, be that profit or copyleft.

      A lot of FOSS projects are older than 20 years. Do you want them to become more open than open by removing the copyright protections?

      If they've not been updated in 20 years, then yes. To be clear, as the code would be out of copyright, you could take it, change it and re-issue it under any licence you wanted if you felt strongly about it being available under the GPL. You could do this with proprietary code if you so chose.

      How do you distinguish new and old code? Line 1 gets no protection and line 2 gets protected? After a bugfix, characters 5..17 of line 413 are protected while the rest of the file is not?

      Copyright is applied from the last change made.

      The original 20 year old code would be out of copyright and would be free for anyone to use as fit, but the modern code, with it's improvements wouldn't be. This seems to be how it works in the publishing world.

    4. Graham Cobb Silver badge

      Re: Yes and no

      The point of copyleft FOSS is that it remains available.

      There are many aims. Almost as many as there are FOSS developers, I suspect.

      My aims, when I release code under GPL, are (i) allow anyone, however much I may agree or disagree with them, and whatever their aims, to use the code, (ii) make sure that these same people, however much I like them and their aims, release their enhancements and improvements to others to benefit from.

      Aim (i) is partly because I am a nice guy, but mostly because this is a reciprocal agreement - I use other people's code (however nice or evil they may think I am) and want to encourage the same model.

      Aim (ii) is nice to have, although I have always accepted it is limited by copyright laws and once my code is unprotected by copyright the power to make people return their improvements goes away.

      When copyright reform happens, and terms become sane, the benefit will be so high that losing the second power will be unimportant. Just think, all the code we have acquired through use of this power (like OpenWRT for example) was based on very recent GPL code. Reducing copyright (and the power of the GPL) to 10 years would not reduce the actual benefits the world gets from the GPL.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Yes and no

        One of the reasons i switched to GPL was to ensure tbe creative commons remained viable

        The BSD license resulted in code of mine (and of other people) becoming paywalled and obscured. I don't mind other people profiting from works I release but I object when they withhold derivative works from being used/examined and essentially corral the commons for personal and perpetual gain

        1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

          Re: Yes and no

          How did they "corral the commons"? Your work is still available. Their derivative work isn't, to the public, but it never was. The situation is unchanged.

          If you don't want work derived from your work1 to be proprietary, fine; that's your preference, and I'm glad you have a legal mechanism that might actually achieve that.2 But I've never been persuaded by the FSF's claim that this is somehow a moral imperative (and I was in Cambridge not long after the FSF was founded and there was still much contentious debate over it, and Stallman's pronouncements, and a few years later over the GPL). There is quite a lot of finger-wagging done by GPL advocates but not a great deal of actual substantive argument to justify it, beyond personal preference.

          1Of course all labor that's not the most primitive sort of extraction is derived from prior labor. Actually even primitive extraction is, since adult humans do not spring forth fully formed from the void, generally speaking.

          2In practice I doubt the GPL has been terribly successful at this. Certainly we've seen no shortage of stories of "vendor X is shipping GPL'd component Y with changes but not providing source".

    5. Fred Daggy Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Re: Yes and no

      A few points that one could consider:

      If the vendor or copyright holder will fix it for a fee. (Being at most the cost of the original software, not adjusted for inflation), OR

      If the original software was free of cost, then, if the copyright holder will accept or publish a fix for at most "time and reasonable cost", then copyright is retained and extended.

      No answer counts as NO. Then the clock starts ticking on the 20 years and then the copyright has expired.

      So, this means that XP is 9 years in to its 20 years of zombie. (After which it will come back and find work in the legal profession)

      Works just about as well for other published works. 20 years and the item is no longer available on the media it was originally published on (or newer format)? No copyright for YOU.

      There is always the issue of "moral rights", of the right of an author to be associated with a work. This works just as well for "limited edition" publications. If I, "Mr Daggy" publish a limited edition paperback of fart jokes, i will wish to be associated with it. In 20 years time, someone else can publish this work, but it will have to be published under their name. My special edition, limited by the amount of paper in the photocopier, will not be blemished by inferior copies.

      1. Rich Puhek

        Re: Yes and no

        I like your points, except that under those conditions the clock shouldn't be a 20 year countdown, but maybe a 2 year countdown. Or maybe 5 years (enough to get into the next iteration of software).

      2. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Yes and no

        Copyright was originally 20 years. It was extended to 50 by the Berne convention - something tbe USA only signed into when companies could profit from enforcing it

        Since the beginning of the 20th century it's been bent completely out of shape and is manifestly unfit for purpose - the latest revisions have almost entirely been to keep the Mouse out of public domain but have been damaging to creativity across the board, mostly only benefitting lawyers, not the actual creators

        There is no justification whatsoever for "creator lifetime plus 50 years", other than to enrich publishers

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Yes and no

          Especially when the rights in most cases have been transferred to a company, while while not alive, can also not die.

          1. Alistair
            Windows

            Re: Yes and no

            transferred to a company, while while not alive, can also not die.

            But you can bet your united citizens that it can lobby like a coke infused wallstreet banker at a strip club to get that copyright extended!

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Yes and no

            If a company wants to use the laws designed for people and not companies, such as copyright lasting for "creator lifetime plus 50 years" then they should be allowed to and should be treated like a person for all things, especially tax. I believe that would give the house of mouse a tax bill of around 30.5 billion U.S. dollars for 2022 as they would be in the top US tax bracket of 37% with an income of 82.7 billion U.S. dollars in 2022

        2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Yes and no

          >the latest revisions have almost entirely been to keep the Mouse out of public domain

          It should just be retroactive. When Disney's copyright is extended for a century then the copyright should extend to a 100years before. Then when all Disney's fairy stories hit HC Anderson or the Brothers Grimm they loose it all to the earlier authors

        3. Sanguma

          Re: Yes and no

          Which is why I keep saying, we should demand, every single one of us, to see the works that Walter Elias Disney was undoubtedly posthumously inspired to create by having the copyright on Mickey Mouse extended to 90 years post mortem. I mean, the US Constitution, which is the overriding Law of the Land in the case of the Mickey Duck Corp(se), does inform us that the purpose of copyright in to provide incentive to creative types to keep producing stuff, and Mickey Duck Corp(se) has clearly indicated it thinks the posthumous productivity of Walter Elias Disney is worth "incentivizing". We have the right to see the resulting products, have we not?

    6. TRT

      Re: Yes and no

      I think the simple answer really is that it should receive the default protection for only 20 years UNLESS it is registered on a some public register rather like the patents office.

      If you're bothered by the copyright expiring then register to extend the protection for another 20 years; if you aren't bothered then fine, it's an orphan / abandon-ware.

      Of course there would have to be some transitional arrangement... and protection against abuse by copyright-trolls... maybe a right to re-assert held by the originator or the originator's estate which expires after a certain period to match the existing law, until it passes beyond the date where a work could have been protected under the old rules, and no extension beyond the existing legislation.

      The same could actually apply for EVERYTHING copyright, actually. There's lots of stuff around which is effectively abandonware because no-one enforces it. This gives a bit more of a legal status to such things.

      1. I could be a dog really Silver badge

        Re: Yes and no

        If you're bothered by the copyright expiring then register to extend the protection for another 20 years

        If that were allowed, then all the big players would simply apply to extend the copyright on everything "just because they can". And the default would be that all software from big names would be under copyright for 40 years - not much better than the current situation.

        Far simpler to just have one standard, shorter, copyright term.

        Of course, it will never happen - too many vested interests with massive lobbying (or is that Doddy's) budgets involved.

        1. TRT

          Re: Yes and no

          Ah, I wasn't saying not to have the shorter term, just that you have to transition to it in a reasonable way.

          The problem as I see it is that the big players have so much weight in the lobbies that they'd kibosh any attempt to introduce a shorter, standard, copyright term. Even if they failed to do that, then they'd still find a way around it somehow.

          And you also have to find a way to grandfather the rights existing code enjoys which is reasonable and fair - you can't just curtail existing rights. If you tried to do that then the short period would only be applicable to everything in 90 years or whenever - far too late to help today. And then you get into the issue of what exactly *IS* code / software... you can't apply this to other creative outputs, for example art, music, literature... you still need to have the existing protections for those.

          You have to look at the rationale for having copyright protection in the first place. To my mind that seems to be protecting the monetisation and use/abuse of the results of intellectual activity.

    7. karlkarl Silver badge

      Re: Yes and no

      Its a good point, I never actually considered free software licenses opening up and forks becoming potentially "less free" if they lose copyright.

      However, as an avid free software user and developer, I still think after 20 years... why not let someone pick it up and try to make a business around it.

      One example I can think of is and ancient GPL level editor or art tool. After 20 years if someone picks it up, ports it to modern systems (this isn't trivial) and polishes it. Why shouldn't they release it commercially (and closed-source) as a quirky indie development tool? I think there is a market for i.e Quake level editors, ancient versions of Blender (old interface, etc).

      It is the difference between left to rot (non-existant) or proprietary only, I still would prefer the latter (obviously open-source is preferred!).

      There are loads of rotting GNU software that could be given life again if they were just a little bit more attractive to someone trying to make a quick buck (yes, there are probably better ways to make a quick buck but each to their own!).

      1. b0llchit Silver badge

        Re: Yes and no

        But making rotting code proprietary does not solve the bitrot. It is a potential hellhole of incompatible and exploitative (read phishing, extortion, etc) crap.

        Anybody, really, anybody can make old(er) or abandoned GNU software better and to improve upon it. Anybody can do so with the current license. You are still allowed to sell services! There is no need to get rid of the copyright status to do so.

        1. karlkarl Silver badge

          Re: Yes and no

          > But making rotting code proprietary does not solve the bitrot. It is a potential hellhole of incompatible and exploitative (read phishing, extortion, etc) crap

          In the long run; no it won't. As closed-source code it will inevitably rot again (and this time there will be no source code to pick up and save it).

          However in the short term, it does allow the guys "customers" to run it for perhaps a decade more. And *then* perhaps they will open-source once they have recouped the costs? Or at least that is the intention.

        2. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Yes and no

          Experience has shown that the bitrot associated with proprietary software is WORSE than opensource - people get locked into zombie code because there are few alternatives and support is impossible, but they're stuck with it unless they cut everything adrift and start over

          It's been a particular issue with database software

          Once upon a time open source softwarenwas given a wide berth because of perceived lack of support. These days the proven lack of support is for commercial code, sometimes even within the support contract period but copyright issues make keeping software from dead companies (in particular) a thorny issue

    8. stiine Silver badge
      Unhappy

      Re: Yes and no

      Copyrights for software should expire after 14 years, and copyright for music, video, et al SHOULD ALSO expire again after 14 years.

    9. Spazturtle Silver badge

      Re: Yes and no

      " How do you deal with many FOSS projects' continual development cycle where part of the code is ancient and some is brand new. How do you distinguish new and old code? Line 1 gets no protection and line 2 gets protected?"

      That is already the case as every contributor holds the copyright to their own commits.

    10. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Source code is not computer software

      Remember, computer software is only the executable machine code and what we call source code is a human-readable literary work which does not depend upon a computer at all. Using this logic, a binary distributed 20 years ago will be fair game for someone to decompile or disassemble to produce their own software with the source code itself still remaining protected under a different timescale. This would allow for enthusiasts to effectively ensure compatibility of old software and allow for reverse engineering efforts of old software to be performed much faster.

      What it would not do is allow businesses to make knock-offs of rival products or put FOSS at risk. It would also not allow for entertainment software (like retro video games) to be freely distributed, since the soundtracks and artistic assets would be copyrighted separately to the software itself. Likewise, trademark protections would forbid unauthorised clones, so you couldn’t just release a copy of something (e.g. Super Mario Bros) with the music stripped out and the pixel art changed while calling it by its original name.

      This all seems like a reasonable change which opens the possibility for a lot of public good without much risk.

  2. John G Imrie

    Coppyright length

    Blame Disney,

    Mickey Mouse should have been in the public domain years ago.

    1. GrumpenKraut
      Angel

      Re: Coppyright length

      Curious spelling of "decades" there.

    2. Stork

      Re: Coppyright length

      AFAIR, the original US copyright was for 7 years, extendable once (or twice?) by seven years more.

      Of course this was mainly about financial rewards and not control of how the work was used and abused.

      1. PRR Silver badge

        Re: Coppyright length

        > US copyright was for 7 years

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law_of_the_United_States

        "...Copyright Act of 1790. This act granted authors the exclusive right to ...for a term of 14 years. ...renewable for one additional 14-year term, if the author was alive...."

        Follows from the very messy history of The Statute of Anne:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

        I do remember 17 years twice; that may come much later.

    3. Crypto Monad Silver badge

      Re: Coppyright length

      Author said:

      "Copyright terms are designed to give adequate payback to creators. Thereafter, the social value of free use was deemed to be greater than any residual benefits to whatever entity held the rights – that's why copyright has limits at all. This logic makes sense with creations that have a long commercial life – books, pictures, music, movies – but much less so for software."

      I disagree with all of that.

      Firstly, the idea that copyright has limits. Originally it did, but because of corporate greed and political arm-twisting, it's now as near as dammit unlimited.

      Copyright terms are primarily designed to give payback to large corporations, and to make Paul McCartney incredibly rich. It's why Bruce Springsteen was able to sell his back catalogue for a reported $550m: investors buy it like an annuity which will generate a guaranteed income for many years to come.

      However, I don't see that serves any useful social purpose.

      Where is that income stream coming from? Obviously from the pockets of music consumers (e.g. subscribers to streaming services), but less obviously, by diverting money away from current, less well-known artists, into a small pool of incredibly wealthy artists and corporations. Money that *could* be paying this century's artists is going mainly to last century's artists.

      Just like software, music and culture also has an incredibly short shelf life. Stuff created today is old hat next year. So why don't we let musicians and composers and other artists monetise their work for (say) 15 years, while it has some semblance of being "current" - and then make it free to use? Then the money pot can be focussed on those people creating *new* things.

      And as for Paul McCartney: if he can't live on his billion-dollar fortune, he can either do some more concerts, or get a proper job.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Coppyright length

        "Just like software, music and culture also has an incredibly short shelf life. Stuff created today is old hat next year."

        Definitely not; I'm still listening to music from 50+ years ago, and it's most of what my kids are hearing too. I might be able to name a current musician or two, but likely not five.

        While I do NOT support the ridiculously-long current copyright lengths (if you haven't made your money in 50 years, too late), "music and culture" can stick around for years. Software, definitely not, and should have a dramatically shorter life (like the proposed 20 years, or maybe 15).

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Coppyright length

        Oh, no! Sonny Bono would have to quit skiing because he couldn't afford it, if he was any good at it....too fucking bad...

      3. doublelayer Silver badge

        Re: Coppyright length

        "Where is that income stream coming from? Obviously from the pockets of music consumers (e.g. subscribers to streaming services), but less obviously, by diverting money away from current, less well-known artists, into a small pool of incredibly wealthy artists and corporations."

        No, that's not the case. It comes from people who still like that music, even years on. If everybody decided that they've heard that music and they're done with it now, there would be no income stream. It exists because people who listen to music, buy it and put it into something else, or ever make a choice of a particular piece are choosing that one. The successful artists are making a lot of money, and the corporations that have those artists in contracts are making even more, but they're only making that much because the music available through those contracts continues to be popular. Under your system where that popular music becomes free, you're going to get even less money going to new artists for a simple reason. Here's an example.

        The current method:

        Advertiser: We want to put some music under this advert. We could buy the rights to a very popular song from the 1980s for $bunch_of_money, or this less well-known song for $bunch_of_money/4. Which one do you want?

        The shortened copyright method:

        Advertiser: We want to put some music under this advert. We could buy the rights to a song which is not well-known for $bunch_of_money/4, or a very popular song from the 1980s for $0, which a lot of people are listening to because anyone can have it for free. Which one do you want?

        In the second scenario, the artist who wrote that famous song will be getting nothing, but the new artists will also be getting less. You would have a cheap streaming service which just has all the popular music, not including the last twenty years or whatever limit you set, and they'd be able to charge much less because they keep all the profits.

      4. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: Coppyright length

        music and culture also has an incredibly short shelf life

        Right, which is why no one these days has ever heard of Star Wars, or Shakespeare, or Journey to the West. And no one listens to Bach or traditional folk music.

        Hell, my 10-year-old granddaughter spends her free time reading books and playing games that are older than her (she and her friends are back into Minecraft now, which came out in 2011), and I've heard her singing songs from the 1970s. The six-year-old was obsessively re-watching Disney's Snow White (1937) not long ago (in rotation with Encanto, from two years ago, and Zootopia from seven).

        I'm in favor of sharply reducing copyright terms myself, but I don't think the "no one pays attention to old stuff" generalization holds any water.

  3. 43300 Silver badge

    But the 20 years thing is in no way straightfoward, as subsequent versions of said software (Windows, in this case, but similar applies in many other areas) are built on the same code base, so the source code is not going to be released.

    1. abend0c4 Silver badge

      The interesting thing about patents is that you have to publish your "novel" invention in order to get temporary protection. Perhaps the same should be true for copyright - you have to publish the original work (source code) and not the derived one (machine code) in order to claim copyright protection.

      1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

        Patents are a poor analogy because they are deliberately opaque. Right at the bottom of the barrel are software patents: no source code published or even written. Just a barrier to making anything compatible.

        I am not sure that using laws to force people to publish source code is the way to go. I would instead propose education: there is a huge difference in value between software that you have a licence to build and use improved versions and software that you can only get fixed from a monopoly vendor - if you can get it fixed at all and if you can tolerate the other new 'features' that are bundled with the new version.

        For an extreme example, imagine a government paying millions for custom software (work for hire so the government ought to be the copyright holder) and they do not even get a license for the source code. Right now, politicians can pass of this sort of thing as normal because of complete and utter ignorance. With sufficient education there is some hope that a contract like that would be conclusive evidence of corruption.

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          For an extreme example, imagine a government paying millions for custom software (work for hire so the government ought to be the copyright holder)

          "Work for hire" usually means employment in which case the copyright would automatically belong to the government if that was the employer.

          More likely this will be a contract to create a product. It differs from "work for hire" because in one case you're buying someone's time and in the other you're buying a specific item. If the government contracts to buy a custom package and doesn't get ownership then unless there is specific political interference you'd have to blame the department's legal team who drew up the contract.

          1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Because it would make it much more expensive. Hey Oracle we need you to quote for a government system and it all becomes public domain. Oh the cost is now the market cap of Oracle ?

            I get this with clients, they want to own all the software I deliver. I then have to explain to them how much it would cost to rewrite everything from scratch just for them and why it's better if I just give them a license to use it.

            1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

              ???

              Several issues confused here.

              Most glaringly, how did public domain get into this? Nobody else suggested that.

              Secondly note that it was custom software that was under consideration. If a client, government or anyone else, commissions some custom S/W they certainly should expect to receive ownership of that. Where does the market cap of the vendor come into it? The custom application code might well run on top of Oracle or some other database (and both on top of an OS) but it is still a separate and separable layer, capable of being delivered to the client as a discrete package, including source.

              Thirdly, if custom software is being specified then the implication is that it will be written from scratch. What would it be rewritten from? And how do you rewrite from scratch?

              Fourth, if a client has engaged you to write something for them why on earth would you think yourself entitled to sell what had been written and paid for by them to another client? I have worked for a company who agreed to go into partnership with the original client to sell the package to other customers but this was some sort of joint venture, not a behind the back operation.

              1. doublelayer Silver badge

                Re: ???

                "how did public domain get into this? Nobody else suggested that."

                It was probably a simplification of this:

                "Perhaps the same should be true for copyright - you have to publish the original work (source code) and not the derived one (machine code) in order to claim copyright protection."

                That's not public domain, but it ends up looking the same in that there's no barrier whatsoever to people getting the code and using it without permission, thus turning the copyright protection into a worse administrative nightmare for a company wanting to make money than DRMing the thing until it can't breathe.

                That was more generic than this specific case, but as many have noted, it's already likely that they would structure a project as work for hire, thus getting the source code. The latest comment can probably be explained as an answer to your question:

                "if custom software is being specified then the implication is that it will be written from scratch. What would it be rewritten from? And how do you rewrite from scratch?"

                No, it isn't exactly guaranteed that every piece of custom software is written from scratch. It can be written from an existing base which is not open source, using libraries a company has already written to simplify things. A lot of database systems use an existing database and bolt on the written from scratch parts. The same is true of many systems where there are wheels that don't need reinventing. This doesn't have to be a problem if you give the code that was written for this project, but not the code of those dependencies. However, if you're asking for the ability to build it all from source using only a compiler, then you'll need the dependency source as well, which the company may not be able and is probably not willing to do. If you want it written from scratch or atop open source components only, that needs to be in the contract, and it's a very reasonable requirement that is found in a number of contracts. I would certainly encourage governments and basically everybody to try to use open source components when possible because it's much easier to change the system later if there isn't a license snarl in the way, but not everyone takes that advice.

      2. Pascal Monett Silver badge

        Will never happen and is unreasonable to ask.

        Code is the source. You publish it and anyone can use it. That entirely defeats the object of copyright because you'll be spending all your money on chasing infringers. Either that or nobody will buy your product in the first place, so you have no money for the chase.

    2. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Releasing the source code has nothing to do with copyright.

      The only source code Microsoft has ever officially released is MS-DOS, and that's only versions 1.25 and 2.

      The code to XP has been leaked, but not in its entirety. There are some bits missing.

      Apparently, the source of NT 5 has also been leaked, but not released.

      As for the code base, yes. Even though Microsoft stated loudly that 7 was a complete rewrite, the fact that vulnerabilities targeted Vista and 7 equally demonstrates that that declaration was pure hookum.

      Borkzilla has never written anything from scratch since XP.

      1. Version 1.0 Silver badge
        Alien

        LOL and I remember disassembling CP/M, I've still got the printed pages but only did the disassembly to try and figure out how the floppy disks were being used.

        1. Benegesserict Cumbersomberbatch Silver badge

          Which raises the issue of reverse engineering, which is prevented by copyright. If you were to release a patch to CP/M that made it more secure, Gary Kildall's estate could be after you for breach of copyright.

          Right to repair is a copyright issue too.

      2. AMBxx Silver badge

        XP was based on Windows 2000 which was based on NT which was based on NT3.51..... etc etc

        1. Version 1.0 Silver badge
          Thumb Up

          I agree, I was just thinking about my first copy of Windows on 3.5 inch "floppy" disks.

          1. eionmac

            3.5" to tip (Dump).

            Ah! How relevant, yesterday I took to the council tip (waste dump facility) about 350 number of 3.5 inch floppy discs. Spent a few hours removing the metal sliders for the metal only dump. I came across my MS Windows 3.1. memories.

        2. J. Cook Silver badge

          .. which was based, IIRC, on IRIX or some other POSIX-like derivative.

          1. katrinab Silver badge
            Meh

            It is sort-of based on OpenVMS.

      3. Sandtitz Silver badge

        "Even though Microsoft stated loudly that 7 was a complete rewrite"

        Please provide a reference for that statement.

        "Borkzilla has never written anything from scratch since XP."

        What makes you think XP was written from scratch. Hint: it wasn't.

        What's the last time Linux kernel was written from scratch with zero code remaining from the previous version - v0.1?

        1. katrinab Silver badge

          I guessing some very early unpublished drafts that only ever existed on Linus Torvald’s computer?

  4. Peter Prof Fox

    What's the monetary damage?

    It's a good couple of decades since I researched this but I seem to recall that if A copies B's work then:

    (a) It's a civil matter not a crime

    (b) B has to show the work is a 'copy'

    (c) AND claim damages for actual loss.

    In the case of XP, Microsoft would have to claim it's being(or potentially) deprived income which would be a bit difficult. It might claim to want to sell retro copies to 'collectors' but that too is a bit of a stretch.

    YMMV in the US which might allow punitive damages.

    1. John Robson Silver badge

      Re: What's the monetary damage?

      Surely everyone who uses XP would instead buy WindowXX (what number are they up to now) at full retail price... no seriously they're not using XP because the latest version is too cheap and would cover their use case.

      1. that one in the corner Silver badge

        Re: What's the monetary damage?

        Huh?

        Not sure what you are trying to say, but just in case I've interpreted your comment correctly and you think that the latest Windows *can* actually

        > cover their use case

        You do know that using the latest Windows isn't viable if you want (need, in more than a few industrial cases) to keep older hardware running?

        Windows 10 won't fit on my (perfectly functional) Dell laptop-with-real-serial-ports-that-don't-change-COM-number-every-bloody-time-I-plug-in-a-widget [1] and Win 11 won't even try on my "newer" Dell-small-enough-to-really-carry-around laptop (which I only got last year so bog off, not buying another one).

        Fingers crossed the drive backups won't have evaporated when the unthinkable happens and I need to reinstall from scratch, but at least now I can put the legit original XP copy back on and get it activated.

        [1] seriously, why the bleep does Windows do that? It isn't even as if I've got that many widgets, it bumps up depending upon the software! Some day soon my box will have COM100 and I'll find out that an otherwise really useful utility only copes upto 99...

        1. Version 1.0 Silver badge

          Re: What's the monetary damage?

          Windows was originally written to work, a factor from its' original DEC environment years earlier.

          But these days Windows is written to make users to buy new computers and generate more data income for Windows.

        2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: What's the monetary damage?

          "You do know that using the latest Windows isn't viable if you want (need, in more than a few industrial cases) to keep older hardware running?"

          I think that was the OP's point.

        3. ChrisC Silver badge

          Re: What's the monetary damage?

          "seriously, why the bleep does Windows do that?"

          Because virtual COM ports are provided by the device you plug in, not by the interface you plug it into. Plug in, say, a FTDI USB-RS232 cable, and Windows will allocate a unique COM port ID to that specific cable based on its own unique device ID. Unplug it, and then plug in an otherwise identical copy of said cable (identical in every respect *aside* from its unique device ID) and it'll be allocated a new port ID.

          Whlst this can be a pain in the proverbial at times (e.g. I have two "identical" copies of my development system, one in my home office and one in my, umm, office office, yet because of this device ID-based allocation of COM ports, I'm having to constantly switch between two sets of COM port allocations each time I switch between those two working environments), it also means that once you've had a COM port allocated to a specific device, you can then move it onto a different USB port without it changing that allocation, which can be useful if you need to add a hub or do some testing at a distance via a USB extender, or even if you just want to tidy up your spaghetti and plug each cable into the port that it's now best suited to be plugged into, as opposed to simply leaving it plugged into whichever one happened to be available at the time it was first connected.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: What's the monetary damage?

            Unplug and plug in the SAME cable (not an identical one) and it'll at least sometimes increment the COM port ID. That's how my one-and-only USB-to-serial cable can have a COM port vary from 4 to 9. I think it gets reset at reboot.

            1. ChrisC Silver badge

              Re: What's the monetary damage?

              This rings a very faint bell at the back of my mind from the days of using Windows 7 at work, but since we switched over to 10 I've never seen it re-assign port numbers unless I do something obvious like uninstalling a device. Otherwise it doesn't seem to matter how many times I reboot, how many times I reconnect, whether I keep everything in the same USB ports or move them around, the port number something gets assigned the first time my PC sees it is the number it then gets every time after that.

              1. that one in the corner Silver badge

                Re: What's the monetary damage?

                FWIW I do understand the enumeration stuff, the underlying *mechanism* of the "why", but I've never (in my uses cases) seen it work *usefully", hence questioning "why did they decide do it like that (and not let you disable it)".

                Having an old fashioned, fixed, COM port[1] means I can program multiple MCU boards[2] with a simple script[3] and just plug them in one after the other. Ditto talking walking around a lab at work, talking to embedded devices at work. Not many (any?) utilities that know COM ports exist will continually re-enumerate the COM ports and keep their UIs up to date, so even if they do the "poll every port and look for a known response" trick[4] you have to restart them every time.

                [1] or an FTDI cable, glued into one port so it damn well never moves[5]

                [2] after bypassing the "helpful" onboard USB-serial, assuming that is feasible

                [3] like "make install"

                [4] and hopefully the chars used in the poll don't send other bit of kit, still plugged into another port, whacko: did that robot arm just move?

                [5] I'll need to be convinced that Win10 reuses the same number *IF* I can plug the device into the same USB *every* time: k USB ports, greater than 2 * k devices? If Win10 is repeatable, I *could* write the effective COM number onto each device - just need a tag big enough for every combo of every USB port for every computer that might be used to talk to this device...

                1. ChrisC Silver badge

                  Re: What's the monetary damage?

                  I can't give you a cast iron (or even a cheap knock-off that'll rust through in a matter of months) guarantee that Win10 will *never* reassign COM ports by itself, all I can say is that in the 2 years I've been using my latest work laptop, moving back and forth between home and the office, generating however many hundreds of USB disconnects/reconnects to the myriad of devices on my dev systems which present themselves as virtual COM ports, I've yet to see any of those port assignments change in the absence of any other change to the setup that would knowingly provoke a reassignment.

                  Re [4], Windows itself can also fall foul of this - at one point during development, one part of the system had been setup to constantly stream diagnostics data back to the PC, however when said PC was then restarted whilst the dev system was still running, something about the nature of that datastream caused Windows to think I'd plugged in a serial mouse instead, and so it dutifully installed the drivers and enabled it as a valid input device alongside my actual mouse. Cue several minutes-worth of WTFery until I realised why the mouse pointer was now randomly jumping around the screen...

        4. J. Cook Silver badge
          Coat

          Re: What's the monetary damage?

          [1] seriously, why the bleep does Windows do that? It isn't even as if I've got that many widgets, it bumps up depending upon the software! Some day soon my box will have COM100 and I'll find out that an otherwise really useful utility only copes upto 99...

          something something USB enumeration; so it's a mix of what USB port you plug into, combined with what other USB devices are plugged in, the order in which they were plugged in, possibly the phase of the moon, what house it's in, and if Jupiter is aligned with Mars...

          Mine's the one with the artwork for "The 5th Dimension" on the back.

        5. John Robson Silver badge

          Re: What's the monetary damage?

          Apologies - I thought the sarcasm was dripping off enough to not need a /s tag.

          Clearly I was wrong.

      2. wub

        Re: What's the monetary damage?

        As occasionally gets pointed out, there are large, expensive scientific and medical devices out there that require complex software programs to operate. The manufacturer writes their software to the latest stable version of Windows, then never updates it. Commercial entities run and maintain these expensive devices for extended periods. Yes, I know, they are supposed to be depreciated in 3 years (or perhaps 5) but even if they are replaced with the latest version, the devices also have an afterlife - there is a healty market for used equipment of this sort.

        Different copyright considerations arise when the device is sold by the original purchaser, but I'm only here to say that as long as those devices are running, they are utterly dependent on old/ancient versions of Windows. No upgrade path there. Even if the updated OS is cheap, it rarely turns out to support the software.

        1. J. Cook Silver badge

          Re: What's the monetary damage?

          See also older, still perfectly functional CNC machines from the 80's that are deadlined for the scrap heap because not only does no one make a replacement controller for it, but the manufacturer has either gone out of business, been merged with some other company and promptly killed off, or has been completely abandoned for any sort of support or replacement parts.

          1. Fifth Horseman

            Re: What's the monetary damage?

            True, but there are a smallish but significant number of companies providing specialist support for older machinery. A mate of mine makes a decent living keeping Thorn-EMI EMI-Mec machines running, and way back in the last millennium I did a stint at a company that retro-fitted CNC controllers to old manual machines. The oldest I worked on was a Harrison centre lathe from 1929 - it was worth the cost and effort because the lathe bed was probably better than anything currently in production.

    2. Filippo Silver badge

      Re: What's the monetary damage?

      >In the case of XP, Microsoft would have to claim it's being(or potentially) deprived income which would be a bit difficult.

      They could claim that its causing monetary damage in missed sales of later Windows versions. This may or may not make sense to you and me, but it's definitely too risky in court.

    3. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: IANAL either

      Years ago the music industry went after people obtaining and distributing copyright works by peer-to-peer file sharing. The legal cost was impractical so they went for high profile news of enormous fines to scare the masses into paying for legitimate copies. It was a complete failure. Although the consequences for getting caught were life changing the chances were near zero. People had more sympathy for pirates than the record labels. The second attempt was to lobby changes to the law so copyright infringement would become a criminal offence instead of a civil offence. Enforcement would be transferred to the crown prosecution service (or local equivalent) so the government would bear all the costs - financial and reputational. Some governments worked out that is would not be a vote winner. Some laws changed a bit in some places. The phrase "commercial scale" may be relevant to deciding if copyright infringement is a civil or criminal offence.

      The key takeaway is the mass copyright infringement is only a viable business strategy if you make a thorough plan with skilled lawyers first, then collect a huge pot of gold from sales that the copyright holder can either negotiate for or watch getting spent on defence lawyers. Worked for Apple, but if you are not that rich keep your head down below the level of many other small players and remember the risk of losing your house (or more) is above zero.

    4. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: What's the monetary damage?

      YMMV in the US which might allow punitive damages.

      "The best justice system that money can buy."

      1. heyrick Silver badge

        Re: What's the monetary damage?

        If I recall correctly, in the US you can only claim damages if the thing that is copyrighted has been "registered", in direct contravention to the Berne Convention as it applies to the rest of the planet, but then America is "special".

        1. Benegesserict Cumbersomberbatch Silver badge

          Re: What's the monetary damage?

          No, they changed that in the 70s. All it takes is a copyright notice in the published work.

          The DMCA stitched it right up by criminalising even personal use violations, which is why you see the FBI logo on USian movie media.

          The US exports its zero-tolerance for non-capitalists policy by shoehorning copyright clauses into its free trade agreements.

          1. runt row raggy

            Re: What's the monetary damage?

            the fbi warning predates the dcma by decades. so the dcma is not the reason for the warning.

          2. heyrick Silver badge

            Re: What's the monetary damage?

            "All it takes is a copyright notice in the published work."

            Sure about that? Yes, the © is enough to assert copyright, but without the onerous requirement of registration, you can kiss goodbye to any sort of award for damages/losses, which pretty much annulls the entire point of what copyright is supposed to be about (plus pretty much carte blanche for American outfits to pilfer foreign content).

            https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ce6ab0fa-d628-43da-af70-07e266197a30

            https://donahue.com/resources/publications/copyrights-registered-u-s/

            Etc etc etc.

      2. Sanguma

        Re: What's the monetary damage?

        manufactured and maintained by the best Congress money can buy ...

  5. Andy 73 Silver badge

    Hmmm..

    20 years feels instinctively too short - I regularly come across tools and utilities that are bumping up against that timeframe and wouldn't begrudge the developers ownership when they're serving a community, however small.

    People then bring up Disney - but really, I'm ok with the Mouse House keeping hold of their rodent. If you've got something to say about a mouse doing funny things, you're not really going to be dooming civilization if you're forced to use *gasp* your own representation of a tiny mammal. Are we genuinely benefitting from endless riffs on Sherlock Holmes, or would we be better off with a new detective? It's a bit of a stretch to say that re-use is always beneficial in that sense.

    This is of course a devil's advocate argument, but one I'm tempted to use when the 'anti-copyright' crowd descend looking like nothing more than a set of vultures looking to pick apart someone else's bones. Much of that behaviour benefits no-one, and we seem to loose the sense of value in someone's hard work. "Why can't I just have it for free?"

    There is an argument that all copyright should be for a shorter term - which would be a seismic change in the direction of legislation in the US. There's also an argument around the poor alignment of the Patent system with anyone but the large corporates who - like Disney - dominate the lobbyist landscape and set the legal agenda.

    Buuutt... just setting the term of copyright to a short value alone really doesn't seem like a proper answer so much as a response to a system that is clearly broken on many levels.

    1. that one in the corner Silver badge

      Re: Hmmm..

      > People then bring up Disney - but really, I'm ok with the Mouse House keeping hold of their rodent

      No-one cares about that mouse, the real damage Disney does is opening the door so that every other copyright extends to stupidly long terms.

      > a response to a system that is clearly broken on many levels.

      You will never fix *anything* if you put off trying because "doing that one thing won't fix it all in one fell swoop". Something something Rome, one day...

      1. Andy 73 Silver badge

        Re: Hmmm..

        > You will never fix *anything* if you put off trying

        No, of course not - but a 'fix' like this, which would be a major change to the current system, would almost certainly prevent any further (and more effective) changes being delivered. The corporates would (quite justifiably) say "But we made these huge concessions, we don't need to do any more!".

        My instinct is that a real change has to come from the sides, changing how we think about the use of copyright and patent material, how we encourage innovation and creativity, who is in a position to create and benefit from their work, and how we as a society interact with all of that. Copyright and patents are both poor fits for software, so rather than bodging them to be less poor, we should be looking at other legal frameworks that can be developed. Copyleft is certainly one (but not the only one) of those alternatives that should be 'built up'.

      2. doublelayer Silver badge

        Re: Hmmm..

        "You will never fix *anything* if you put off trying because "doing that one thing won't fix it all in one fell swoop"."

        You will also never fix anything by just making changes because you're aware of the problem but not how or whether your changes will address it. That approach is likely to have more counterproductive effects, because after a few "Something must be done, so how about this" attempts, people lose the desire to keep trying things at random.

        "Copyright should be 20 years" is a policy that's going to cause several big changes in the area of IP. We don't know what all of those are, but even those which can be assumed are being ignored by many here who are proposing it. For example, if copyright was canceled that quickly, then you could use Windows XP for free without legal problems, which is ... basically what you already have because Microsoft hasn't sent anyone to punish those who leaked the license generator. It's not enshrined in law, but it is what happens de facto. That's not what people are asking for, though, which means that when the change to copyright means that software support and availability hasn't changed, they'll want to introduce a new change. For example, some posts here which have advocated some type of mandatory publishing of source code, which will cause a lot more changes. In the meantime, the shortened copyright term will have caused a lot of chaos in other types of intellectual property that don't become as obsolete in two decades, and someone will want to clean that up. This idea seems to have been written after about five minutes' thought, and that's a poor way to fix any problem.

      3. Benegesserict Cumbersomberbatch Silver badge

        Re: Hmmm..

        One of my favourite bands deliberately risked litigation from the mouse house by sampling less than a second of what was clearly identifiably Mickey's voice into a loop on the chorus one of their published tracks.

        Being an Aussie band and their work published in Australia, the mouse had fallen into the public domain here a few months before the track came out. I'm sure they did it just for the pains it would put to their music company IP lawyers.

    2. JoeCool Silver badge

      Copyright strikes a balance

      Disney simply pushed the balance in favour of their corporate interests.

      Copyright only has to make a socially acceptable tradeoff, not perfectly protect Microsoft, etc.

      20 years sounds ok to me.

  6. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    "What was not part of the equation was the incredibly accelerated time frame of technological innovation."

    Another thing not part of the equation is the incredibly extended time that the software may need to be in operation. Any OS can have no commercial value* other than as a component of the system in which it is installed. Where that system has a planned service life much longer than the OS vendor considers commercially desirable we have a mismatch.

    To some extent we should blame the designer of the system for using an ephemeral component (a physical comparison might be lubricating oil) with no provision for changing it at EoL. However there may be no available alternative. What seems to be needed is a concept such as a "Capital equipment grade" grade for S/W which comes with some form of assurance - maybe code escrow - that it will never become unsupportable.

    * This may not be the vendor's view. However a moment's reflection should show the vendor that unless it has such value to a purchaser it has no market and hence no value at all.

  7. Franco Bronze badge

    It's another of those examples where existing laws were applied to computers and software and internet before the real world applications were fully understood.

    The problem is that even though XP is "dead" in terms of support, it's still being used commercially and legally in plenty of cases. I've worked on several migration projects where embedded systems are still running XP and will be until the hardware they are attached to dies, because the 5-6 figure investment in (for example) a new saw system to produce timber frames for houses isn't practical - the old systems are just moved to an isolated VLAN with no internet access. I know of systems far older than XP still being used as well.

  8. Tubz Silver badge

    Simple solution, software or even hardware that a publisher/manufacturer no longer supports, all locks removed and source code/schematics should instantly become open source. yes you get the likes of Microshaft moaning, as the new version of product-x is backwards compatible and maybe using the same code, but that's their problem, you can't EOL code being used in the next version or set a 10 year maximum residual copyright before it goes open source and less for hardware that can be classed as obsolete with a couple of years without hurting a companies IP.

  9. Simon Rockman

    I'd bet there is plenty of code SAP is using that is more than 20 years old.

  10. heyrick Silver badge

    Twenty years!?

    How about five years after it ceases to be commercially available, or supported (if not commercial).

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    XP should die

    Windows XP is insecure and GNU/Linux is much better. If copyright helps kill off Windows XP, that sounds to me like copyright has done a good thing, although that's not what it was designed to do.

    Maybe allow developers to use stuff from it for compatibility purposes, but don't allow just anyone and everyone to install it everywhere.

    1. heyrick Silver badge

      Re: XP should die

      I use XP. And no, the machine isn't online (duh). I have a few apps that I use from time to time that run on XP.

      So, no, I don't need to buy an entirely new PC in order to use the latest Windows that might not actually run those apps.

      And, no, I don't need to install and use an entirely different operating system that might not actually run those apps.

      I think in this day and age, anybody still using XP is either a cheapskate that downloaded a copy (that may well already have "issues" never mind what happens online) or needs to use it for some specific reason.

      Oh, I should add, one of those photo printer kiosks also uses XP, saw it a couple of weeks ago in a reboot loop. Again, so long as it isn't exposed to the internet, if it runs a given app and talks to a certain printer, then why not? As long as it isn't used in a way that is potentially insecure (online!), there's not necessarily any valid case to upgrade or change the OS (which may require new hardware) when what is already there works.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: XP should die

        If it's already there in a photo booth or something (not online) then no problem, but what we don't want is new installs (especially connected ones).

        Maybe copyright is the wrong tool to do this though. Something more along the lines of "your ISP fines you if a botnet infects your system and you can't show you kept up to date with a supported OS or took other reasonable precautions" maybe?

      2. J.G.Harston Silver badge

        Re: XP should die

        I have one machine that I keep XP on for my PDP11 emulation, as later versions refuse to go full-screen with the correct number of lines and columns. Post-XP Windows in full-screen fills with as many columns and rows as will fit, instead of the number I tell it to use. Computers are supposed to be there to do what ****I**** tell them to do, not for them to tell me what they think I should be doing. I specify 80x25 full screen, you shall *****ing well give me 80x25 full screen.

  12. pdh

    Make like trademarks, not patents or copyright?

    The U.S. trademark system includes a rule saying that you lose rights to a trademark if you don't use it for a period of time -- 3 consecutive years I think. Maybe that's a better model than patents or copyrights? If a publisher continues to distribute and support the software, then they retain their rights indefinitely. But once they abandon it, it automatically moves into the public domain.

    1. druck Silver badge

      Re: Make like trademarks, not patents or copyright?

      What if they annually issue a new version with the only change being the version number - is that abandoned or not?

      1. pdh

        Re: Make like trademarks, not patents or copyright?

        If they still offer support, then I'd say it's not abandoned, but I'd include bug fixes as part of "support." I wouldn't want to penalize the publisher of a small app that "just works" without any ongoing changes (if there ever was such a thing), but I'd insist that there should still be a working support line and that the publisher still stands ready to fix any significant bug or security vulnerability that might pop up.

        1. doublelayer Silver badge

          Re: Make like trademarks, not patents or copyright?

          "the publisher still stands ready to fix any significant bug or security vulnerability that might pop up."

          You don't have that now. The publisher will try to fix any bug or vulnerability that they feel is bad enough to cause them a problem, but not otherwise. This is annoying, but there has never been any requirement that manufacturers of anything, software or otherwise, fixes a problem you might have unless it leads to safety issues. You can sometimes return a product based on those, but not even that in all cases.

          It's not really a parallel to trademarks either; to keep a trademark, you must continue to use it in business, not to make available the products with which you once used it. If Apple decided they were shutting down but wanted to keep the name for computer products, they could make a single Apple Computer which sells for a million dollars and contains as the only processor an RP2040 and a tiny screen, no battery, no disks, and no ports. Insert your joke about actual Apple prices and product features here. They can still keep the name, even if all the Macs are dropped.

          1. Benegesserict Cumbersomberbatch Silver badge

            Re: Make like trademarks, not patents or copyright?

            they could make a single Apple Computer which sells for a million dollars and contains as the only processor an RP2040 and a tiny screen, no battery, no disks, and no ports.

            For it to be trade, they would have to sell it. But some fanboi would buy it.

            1. doublelayer Silver badge

              Re: Make like trademarks, not patents or copyright?

              True, they have to be selling it, but they can keep changing the terms under which they're selling it until they no longer have to actually make any other than the one prototype. Even the craziest fan eventually stops if the price goes high enough. I just included the processor so that nobody can claim that it's not really a computer. The point is that even trademarks are pretty easy to keep if you're willing to go to a little effort and don't put anything near the restrictions or requirements that people are calling for.

  13. Grogan Silver badge

    I have especially little sympathy for companies that take something out of publication and then complain about people still using it without their permission.

    1. Orv Silver badge

      Me too, although I'm not sure how you deal with that legally. Schemes like "intellectual property must be available on request" opens up hypotheticals like, "I hear you have some nude pictures of your wife, I'm requesting a copy." ;)

  14. aerogems Silver badge

    Microsoft would fight this tooth and nail. If someone was able to freely decompile and reverse engineer Windows XP or even Vista, that would have serious implications for future versions of Windows. The ReactOS developers, for example, could potentially leap to having a fully compatible version of Windows up to at least XP and then trying to add in whatever changes MS has made since then would be far less challenging.

    I'm sure there are other companies that would be in similar situations.

    1. druck Silver badge

      The ReactOS developers, for example, could potentially leap to having a fully compatible version of Windows up to at least XP and then trying to add in whatever changes MS has made since then stop before they bollock it up too.

      FTFY,

  15. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge

    The problem is caused

    by m$'s attitude (among others who are just as guilty) that we'll pay for a 'new and improved' version of whatever crap they are making because its 'new and improved' and as a result they'll shut down anyone trying to get hold of fixes/improvements to their 'old and bollocks' software.

    This would be akin to a car manufacturer saying "Right we're making the new GM clusterfuckenburger, better milage, better radio, better everything... oh and by the way we're disabling the previous verison of the clusterfuckenburger so that you'll be forced to buy a new one...... and we'll not be making any more spares for the old clusterfuckenburger either. And we'll sue if anyone makes spares or even makes a second hand version run again'

    We dont tolerant that behaviour from any other manufacturer...including 'fit for its intended purpose' clauses in the various sales of goods acts, eg I buy a new PC from a supplier and the PSU quits after 30 days, I can take it back and demand a refund/repair, I buy a copy of windows 666 and it deletes all my data after 30 days and refuses to run, its 'tough shit'

    Why is software so different?

    BTW I'm in industrial controls... windows XP still lives because it A. Works and B would cost several $10 000 plus to replace (and we still have the install discs)

    1. doublelayer Silver badge

      Re: The problem is caused

      Except your analogy doesn't fit the software experience at all. If you work in industrial controls, you already know this.

      Microsoft did not disable Windows XP from working. It still runs on any machine on which it was installed, and you can still activate it. They don't sue anyone who makes spares for it; if I open a company where I say I'll help you install XP on something, I'm allowed to do so. If I write antimalware software for it, I'm allowed to do that. Microsoft not only doesn't sue me for doing this, they have no right to sue on that basis. If I sold a bunch of copies of XP which I've hacked, they do have the right to sue me for that, although they probably don't care enough to bother, but that is not at all what you were implying with your car analogy.

      If we stick with the car analogy, manufacturers eventually stop making spares for a certain model. That doesn't mean you're forbidden from using your old car, or that you won't be able to find spares, but at some point, they don't consider it worth it to continue making parts that few people need. Software people do the same. It's your choice whether to use the old versions, buy the updated version, or switch to an alternative product. Where that choice is limited, I oppose it, but the response to that should be freedom to choose the software you are going to buy, not a mandate for permanent support.

  16. martinusher Silver badge

    No Commercial Value

    You often see the letters "NCV" on the customs labels on small packages and it means just that -- the item in the package has insufficient value to be a commercial transaction, its being sent as a sample or something like that.

    The problem with copyright is that the person asserting it can claim a purely arbitrary value which the legal system is required to respect. This leads to absurd claims that have to be tested at great expense to all because of the possibility of a legally enforceable judgment for some arbitrary amount of damages, an amount that says more about the worth of the entity being sued than the value of the object.

    Most copyrights are worthless if they're tested on the open market. I suspect Windows XP would be one of these. There's lots of copies around because it got used in machines or applications that were stable and so didn't require upgrading of the OS with all its attendant headaches. Its difficult for those who's lives revolve around their desktop and their Internet connection to grasp this -- they can't understand why anyone would use anything other than "the latest" and go into paroxysms of pearl clutching at the thought of all those insecurities but the reality is that if the application lacks an Internet connection or an accessible port of any sort then its going to be usable no matter how old the code is. (...and as a bonus it will run on cheap hardware) So while I don't think anyone would use something like WinXP for a new application....well, you know how it goes.

  17. emfiliane

    El Reg: "Hey, it's Monday and it looks like traffic numbers are low. Let's post a retread of Stallman's essays from 40 years ago and see if we can rile everyone up."

  18. Grunchy Silver badge

    I preserved my copy of “MPX”

    https://archive.org/details/mpx_20211104

    You can still run MPX in “DosBOX” but the problem is the authors only ever let loose this “hobbleware” version.

    Which is too bad because it looks like a real cool program!

    Somewhere, somebody’s still got the diskette with an actual working copy… !

  19. Sanguma

    Iterations thereof

    Part of the problem I suspect is that software iterates. Or to use another analogy, it gets retreads and refurbishments every now and then.

    Copyright as it stands at the current day, is based on items that don't iterate/get retreads, refurbishments, new roofs put on, new engines, new range hoods installed in teh NEW, UP2DATE Kitchen_Of_Your_Dreams ... copyright was originally for books, and how many times does a new edition of say Dombey and Sons or Tommyknockers or Of Human Bondage come out that completely changes the settings, etc, the way Microsoft for example, completely changed the desktop metaphor between Windows 3 and Windows 95? So that the lead character in Tommyknockers one edition, is driving a Ford Prefect and in the next edition he's driving a Toyota Prius? And the lead character in Nicholas Nickleby in the latest up2date edition drives a retro Model T, complete with Toyota Prius drivechain, and has the latest Galaxy phone.

    Software does that all the time. So, my own personal preference would be for software to become Open to Constant Users after the second iteration away from the state it is fixed for particular users, such as the CNC machines, photocopiers, whatnot, that people mention. And after End Of Life, the source code/source trees get released into the public under an MIT/BSD style license. That way, software that has played an important role in computer history, will be open to examination and fooling around with, by computer scientists and security experts and hobbyists and others besides the ever-present malware kiddies.

  20. david 12 Silver badge

    "it seemed a good fit"

    Software inherited copyright protection in the middle of the last century because it seemed a good fit.

    Software copyright inherited the existing legislation, and most critically, the existing international treaty framework.

    Apart from that, as we all remember, it never really fit into the existing copyright rules, which squeaked and bent as software copyright went through the courts to fit software into the existing categories.

    What we ended up with is strange and distorted, but I'm not entirely unsympathetic. Creating a totally new legislative framework for software copyright would have been slow and contentious, but creating new copyright treaties would have taken decades if not centuries, as it did first time around.

  21. StrangerHereMyself Silver badge

    Wishful thinking

    This is merely wishful thinking (of limiting copyright on software) since the entertainment industry has a strong vote in the U.S. Congress. Also, Big Tech too may not like the proposal and sink it before it gets to the House floor.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like